2010 Supreme(Mad) 5267
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR
National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Versus
A. Marimuthu & Another
C.M.A.No.4003 of 2005
Decided On :Decided On : 06-12-2010
For the Appellant:S. Arun Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents: No Appearance.
The severity of the claimant's injuries and their impact on the claimant's earning capacity as a photographer justified the application of the multiplier method to determine the compensation.
Headnote:
Injury - Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Second Schedule - The court discussed the injuries suffered by the claimant, the negligence of the auto rickshaw driver, the compensation awarded, and the application of the multiplier method. The court modified the compensation awarded by the Tribunal based on the severity of the injuries and the claimant's earning capacity as a photographer.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant, a photographer, suffered serious injuries in a motor accident due to the negligence of the auto rickshaw driver. The Tribunal awarded compensation based on the claimant's injuries and occupation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the injuries significantly affected the claimant's earning capacity as a photographer and modified the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
Issues: The issues involved the negligence of the auto rickshaw driver, the severity of the claimant's injuries, and the appropriate compensation based on the claimant's occupation and earning capacity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the multiplier method to ascertain the loss of income or earning power based on the severity of the claimant's injuries and occupation as a photographer.
Final Decision: The court modified the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and reduced the interest rate, allowing the claimant to withdraw the balance award amount.
1. This appeal is filed against the award and decree dated 16.3.2005 made in M.C.O.P.No.926 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, (FTC III), Namakkal.
2. It is a case of injury. The accident in this case happened on 14.5.2003. The claimant Marimuthu, 45 years old photographer, was travelling as a passenger in the auto rickshaw insured with the appellant. Due to rash and negligent driving by the driver, the auto rickshaw turned turtle. In that accident the claimant suffered injuries to his left arm, chest and face. The Wound Certificate Exhibit A2 states that he suffered fracture of the left shaft humerus and fracture of the 7th and 8th rib on the left side. The ultra sound shows rupture of the spleen. All the three injuries were found to be grievous in nature.
3. The injured/claimant was first treated at RPS hospital, Salem where certain procedures were done and discharged. Thereafter, he was treated at Amirtha Institute of Medical Sciences. The Discharge Summary of RPS Hospital, Salem is Exhibit A4 and the Discharge summary of Amirtha Institute of Medical Sciences is Exhibit A5. Consequent to the injury and treatment, the claimant claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-as compensation.
4. On behalf of the claimant before the Tribunal, the injured/claimant Marimuthu was examined as P.W.1. The Doctor was examined as P.W.2 and Exhibits A1 to A10 were marked, the details of
which are as follows:-
Ex.A1 is the First Information Report,
Ex.A2 is the Wound Certificate,
Ex.A3 is the Medical Bills,
Ex.A4 is the Discharge Summary,
Ex.A5 is the Discharge Summary,
Ex.A6 is the Scan Report,
Ex.A7 is the X-Ray,
Ex.A8 is the Blood donation reports,
Ex.A9 is the Disability Certificate and
Ex.A10 is the X-Ray On behalf of the appellant insurance company, the second respondent before the Tribunal RW1, Kannan, R.W.2 S.R.Nagaraj and R.W.3 Anandhan were examined and Exhibits R1 to R4 were marked, the details of which are as follows:-
Ex.R1 is the copy of the policy, Ex.R2 is the Accident Register,
Ex.R3 is the Investigation Report and
Ex.P4 is the Driving License.
5. The Tribunal based on the oral and documentary evidence accepted the plea of negligence on the part of the driver of the auto rickshaw. This is based on the F.I.R. and other documents filed. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the driver of the auto rickshaw was negligent and was responsible for the accident and consequently, fixed the liability on the appellant to compensate the claimant.
6. In so far as compensation is concerned, as per Ex.A2, the Disability Certificate, the disability has been assessed at 50% by the Doctor. The medical records, namely, Discharge Summary Ex.A4 given by RPS Hospital Salem and Ex.A5 Discharge Summary treatment taken at Amirtha Institute of Medical Sciences shows that the injured/claimant has undergone injuries as follows:
Ex.A4:
"15/05/03 I BLUNT INJURY – ABDOMEN
Dr.G.Sundaramoorthy,MS LAPARATOMY -SPLEENIC
Dr.Venkatesh, DA TEAR MULTIPLE – SPLENECTOMY
Under S.A, midline incision extending lateral, abdomen open about 1lt. Of blood seen in the peritoneal cavity. It was sucked out. There are multiple thear seen in the surface of the spleen. Splenectomy done by applying clamp to the pedicle. Liver and other viscera found to be Normal. A drain kept in the (L). Wound closed in layers after complete hemostasis. After surgery, two units of blood is given.
18/05/03
Dr.K.G.Kandasamy, D.Ortho II PLATING
Dr.Venkatesh, DA (L) Humerous
Under Regional Anaesthesia, posterior approach, Radial Nerve found trapped in between # fragment. Nerve released and plating done."
Ex.A5:
"Course in Hospital:
Patient was managed with implant removal and open reduction and internal fixation and bone grafting of the fracture non-union of the left humerus. Postoperative period was uneventful. There was no evidence of any infection or increased nerve palsy. Patient was mobilized with immediate post operative, was having post op shoulder stiffnes